Judges Reject Trump’s Attempt to Unilaterally Rewrite U.S. Trade Policy

A U.S. trade court has rejected Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff proposal, ruling that the former president exceeded his constitutional authority by attempting to impose broad duties on imports from trade-surplus nations.
The Court of International Trade in New York determined that decisions involving international commerce fall under Congress’s jurisdiction—not the executive branch—even during times of economic strain. The decision came in response to lawsuits from small business owners and a coalition of states who argued that Trump’s actions would harm American importers and sidestep legal limits.
Trump had sought to justify the tariffs by declaring the trade deficit a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law traditionally used for imposing sanctions during global crises. This marked the first time a U.S. president attempted to wield IEEPA to levy trade duties rather than restrict hostile foreign actors.
Although some of the proposed tariffs were later eased—particularly those aimed at China—the legal battle pressed on. In their decision, the judges made clear that the issue wasn’t about the effectiveness of tariffs but about the limits of presidential power.
The ruling prompted immediate backlash from Trump allies, with White House advisor Stephen Miller denouncing the court’s move online. Meanwhile, officials leading the lawsuits celebrated the outcome as a victory for democratic checks and balances.
As legal appeals begin to unfold, financial markets responded with cautious optimism, with the dollar gaining against traditional safe havens. The broader implications of the ruling may reshape how far the executive branch can go in rewriting global trade rules.